Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Purchase And Evaluation of Automated Marking and Tagging Systems (MATS) |
| Proposal ID | 200307900 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Christine Mallette |
| Mailing address | 17330 SE Evelyn Street Clackamas, OR 97015 |
| Phone / email | 5036572000 / christine.mallette@state.or.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Guy Norman |
| Review cycle | Mainstem/Systemwide |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / |
| Short description | ODFW proposes to purchase and further evaluate equipment designed to mass mark hatchery reared juvenile fish. The technology for automated fin marking and/or Coded Wire Tagging has recently been advanced and new equipment is available. |
| Target species | Spring Run Chinook, Coho, Steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
|
|
System-wide, from lower Snake River to Columbia River Estuary |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
| NMFS |
Action 174 |
NMFS |
Working through regional prioritization processes to the extent feasible and in coordination with NMFS, BPA shall collaborate with the regional, state, Tribal, and Federal fish managers and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission to enable the development and implementation of a comprehensive marking plan.
1. Develop a comprehensive marking strategy for all salmon and steelhead artificial production programs in the Columbia River basin by the end of 2001.
2. Provide funding by March 1, 2001, to begin marking all spring chinook salmon that are currently released unmarked from Federal or Federally funded hatcheries.
3. Provide funding, beginning in FY 2002, to implement the Action Agencies’ share of the comprehensive marking plan for production not addressed in (2) above.
4. Obtain funding contributions as appropriate for additional sampling efforts and specific experiments to determine relative distribution and timing of hatchery and natural spawners. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 198201302 |
Annual Stock Assessment - Coded Wire Tag Program (ODFW) |
MATS deployment could assist with more economic implementation of annual fish marking goals outlined by the Stock Assessment - CWT Program. |
| 199000500 |
Umatilla Fish Hatchery, Monitoring and Evaluation |
MATS deployment could assist with more economic implementation of annual fish marking goals outlined by the Umatilla Fish Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation Program . |
| 198903500 |
Umatilla Fish Hatchery, Operations and Maintenance |
MATS deployment could potentially reduce annual operational cost of fish marking. |
|
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) |
MATS deployment could assist with more economic implementation of annual fish marking goals outlined by the Lookingglass Fish Hatchery Program under the LSRCP |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Acquire a total of three automated Marking and Tagging System (MATS) units. |
1.1. Prepare customized bid specifications. Coordinate with vendor to oversee unit construction and delivery. Modify unit specifications as needed and practical to be used in the construction of subsequent units. |
3 |
$806,603 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Acquisition of three MATS units. |
2003 |
2005 |
$2,407,997 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $800,797 | $800,797 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 2. Evaluate the technical, biological and economical benefits of MATS. |
2.1. Implement side-by-side marking and tagging operations at three hatcheries using MATS and conventional (manual) marking units at each facility. |
3 |
$28,441 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 2. Evaluate the technical, biological and economical benefits of MATS. |
2003 |
2005 |
$62,103 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $30,147 | $31,956 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 2. Evaluate the technical, biological and economical benefits of MATS |
2.2. Evaluate comparative marking and tagging efficiency, fish condition, tag placement, initial fin mark quality and cost effectiveness. |
3 |
$6,682 |
|
|
2..3. Conduct pre-release sampling for tag retention and fin mark quality. Recover and examine precocious and adult fish returning to the hatcheries and collection facilities. Determine differential survival and long term fin mark quality. |
7 |
$0 |
|
|
2.4. Prepare annual progress and final reports |
7 |
$1,670 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 2. Evaluate the technical, biological and economical benefits of MATS. |
2003 |
2007 |
$57,361 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $8,853 | $15,237 | $16,151 | $17,120 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: .5 |
$18,257 |
| Fringe |
@ 38 % |
$6,937 |
| Supplies |
Needles, Cutters, Tags, Anaesthetic, etc. |
$12,845 |
| Travel |
|
$1,250 |
| Indirect |
@ 23.3.% |
$9,107 |
| Capital |
One MATS unit @ $795,000 |
$795,000 |
| $843,396 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $843,396 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $843,396 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| State of Oregon |
Administrative and supervisory services |
$8,352 |
cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Aug 2, 2002
Comment:
This proposal is technically inadequate. Do not fund, no response requested. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) proposes to purchase and further evaluate automated systems for mass marking hatchery reared juvenile salmon and steelhead. The proposal would purchase 3 systems over the next 3 years at an annual cost of nearly $900,000.
However, the proposal provides no technical background to the mass-marking proposals or past evaluations of mass-marking, not even a description of what it is! There were essentially no methods presented only a short list of tasks. The presentation of this proposal contained much of the material that could have been incorporated into the proposal. For example, the oral presentation made clear that evaluation of the equipment has been adequate to justify incorporating the automated systems into current operations. Fundamentally, this proposal requests BPA to purchase 3 trailer marking systems that would save the State substantial funds each year. Unless there is an error in this simplistic logic, the State should purchase these systems and recover their costs over time.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Oct 24, 2002
Comment:
Fish marking to support fishery management as identified in the proposal is the management responsibility of the project sponsor. Funds to purchase mass marking equipment should be sought through other management and regulatory forums. The project sponsor should address the ISRP comments and should also identify the proportion of effort that falls under BPA's responsibility. This project meets RPA 174 of the NMFS 2000 BiOp.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Nov 5, 2002
Comment:
Not Fundable, disagree with CBFWA's "Recommended Action" This proposal is technically inadequate. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) proposes to purchase and further evaluate automated systems for mass marking hatchery reared juvenile salmon and steelhead. The proposal would purchase 3 systems over the next 3 years at an annual cost of nearly $900,000.
However, the proposal provides no technical background to the mass-marking proposals or past evaluations of mass-marking, not even a description of what it is! There were essentially no methods presented only a short list of tasks. The presentation of this proposal contained much of the material that could have been incorporated into the proposal. For example, the oral presentation made clear that evaluation of the equipment has been adequate to justify incorporating the automated systems into current operations. Fundamentally, this proposal requests BPA to purchase 3 trailer marking systems that would save the State substantial funds each year. Unless there is an error in this simplistic logic, the State should purchase these systems and recover their costs over time.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jan 21, 2003
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Increase survival of listed fish by enabling mark selective fishing techniques where unmarked (listed) fish can be released, while also contributing to resolving the masking effect of hatchery fish on the status of natural populations.
Comments
RPA 174-3 requires the AA's to contribute to marking of hatchery production to enable selective fisheries and reduce the masking effect of hatchery production as described in RPA 182.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
Yes
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund (Tier 3)
Date:
Jun 11, 2003
Comment:
Category:
3. Other projects not recommended by staffComments: